Mancuso v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mancuso v. State

226 A.D.2d 320, 642 N.Y.S.2d 225

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 30, 1996

DocketClaim No. 89179

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 320 (Mancuso v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mancuso v. State, 226 A.D.2d 320, 642 N.Y.S.2d 225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Court of Claims (Christopher Mega, J.), entered April 6, 1995, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In an action seeking to recover for personal injuries sustained by claimant when, as a spectator at a basketball game played at a college campus owned by defendant, a fight broke out during the course of the game, issues of fact exist precluding summary judgment, including whether the fight was foreseeable; if so, whether defendant failed to provide adequate security to prevent it; and, if not, whether such breach of duty was a proximate cause of claimant’s injury (see, Rotz v City of New York, 143 AD2d 301; Shtekla v Topping, 23 AD2d 750, 751). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Court of Claims (Christopher Mega, J.), entered April 6, 1995, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In an action seeking to recover for personal injuries sustained by claimant when, as a spectator at a basketball game played at a college campus owned by defendant, a fight broke out during the course of the game, issues of fact exist precluding summary judgment, including whether the fight was foreseeable; if so, whether defendant failed to provide adequate security to prevent it; and, if not, whether such breach of duty was a proximate cause of claimant’s injury (see, Rotz v City of New York, 143 AD2d 301; Shtekla v Topping, 23 AD2d 750, 751). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 320, 642 N.Y.S.2d 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mancuso-v-state-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack